agentleFS
GitHubKnown publishergithub/squad/packages/squad-cli/templates/skills/fact-checking/SKILL.md

fact-checking

Skill3.4k starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Review and validate claims using counter-hypothesis testing. Use when verifying technical content, checking references, validating API endpoints, or performing quality assurance on deliverables.

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask: "What evidence supports this?

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify URLs, package names, API endpoints, and external references actually exist

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    When reviewing another agent's work, use this template:

    line 31

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Skill: Fact Checking

Context

Codifies the challenger agent review output format and methodology so any agent performing fact-checking or review produces consistent, structured output.

Pattern

Review Methodology

For every claim or deliverable under review:

  1. Ask: "What evidence supports this? What would disprove it?"
  2. Generate counter-hypotheses and test them against available data
  3. Verify URLs, package names, API endpoints, and external references actually exist
  4. Flag confidence levels: ✅ Verified, ⚠️ Unverified, ❌ Contradicted

Review Output Format

When reviewing another agent's work, use this template:

### Fact Check — {deliverable name}
**Claims verified:** {count}
**Issues found:** {count}

| # | Claim | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|-------|--------|---------------|
| 1 | {claim} | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {supporting or contradicting evidence} |

**Counter-hypotheses tested:**
- {alternative explanation + result}

**Verdict:** {PASS / PASS WITH NOTES / NEEDS REVISION}

Confidence Levels

  • ✅ Verified — evidence confirms the claim
  • ⚠️ Unverified — cannot confirm or deny; suggest verification method
  • ❌ Contradicted — evidence disproves the claim

Ceremony Integration

Auto-trigger this skill before any architecture decision, or when an agent claim contains superlatives or percentage thresholds (e.g., "saves 75%", "always", "never"). The coordinator spawns the challenger agent with:

Challenger — fact-check {agent}'s claim: "{claim}"
Cite evidence for every verdict. Max 3 investigation cycles.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.